Friday, 22 July 2016

20th October; See later post Legal Charge £190,390 - Court hearing. The hearing is on December 1st 2016 in Carmarthen4th August; My objections againstcharging order being made final now filed with court and council.

Further to the Executive Board decision to pursue me for legal costs, I received an Interim Charging Order today for £190,390 against my home. I have 28 days to object to the Charge being made final. As I understand it, following any objection, and I will object, the matter will be then be decided by a judge, possibly at a court hearing. A hundred and ninety grand...
The Council have transferred these proceedings to Carmarthen.

9 comments:

Anonymous
said...

It must be an agonising time for you and your family.Dyfed Powys Police it would seem are unnecessarily adding your plight. As the accusation was one of harassment, surely a visit from one of their number should have been their course of action months ago to ensure the alleged harassment ceases. It clearly isn't harassment they are looking at. What on earth do they think they are doing. You and your family deserve an explanation from them. Four months is too long.

I'm very sorry that it has come to this. I suspect in most jurisdictions these libel actions, on all sides, would not have been seriously entertained by the judiciary. Carmarthenshire County Council should have had the good sense not to have got embroiled in litigation, for the sake of the council taxpayers and, most importantly, - with regard to funding the counterclaim - for the sake of democracy. The reason that such funding was made unlawful in the first place was to safeguard democracy. But perhaps the councillors who initiated this sorry saga lack even the understanding of the word. And this is the result! A spiteful bun fight which discredits the legal system, the Carmarthenshire County Council and the individual players involved and where the casualty, apart from Jacquie Thompson herself, is justice and democracy.

As usual, Tim Hart has summed matters up eloquently and succinctly. It's high time Dyfed Powys closed this "investigation" and took the chief executive to task for what amounts to wasting police time and resources.

I absolutely agree with Cneifiwr ,and Tim Hart, and I imagine that the vast majority of ordinary, reasonable people will think the same. I am so sorry for you and your family, Jacqui, but you know that so many support you in this terrible time.

The timing of this vindictive and spurious action has always seemed a little odd. I had thought they might be a bit wary of running into the six year limitation rule.

Whilst thinking of the Hamilton Hall (Hullavington, Wiltshire, England) National Assembly for Wales disgrace I looked a little more closely at the conditions for nomination to stand for election, and more pertinently the disqualifications. Are the cosy Councillors and their puppet-masters really that afraid of you sweeping into office and wreaking havoc with a bright light from within?

Section 1.30 of the Electoral Commission's Guidance for candidates and agents (Part 1 of 6 – Can you stand for election?) states a candidate must not be "currently subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order or debt relief restrictions order made by a court" http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/141784/Part-1-Can-you-stand-for-election-LGEW.pdf

Similar rules disqualify for community/parish councils and devolved assemblies (curiously the tests for registration, occupancy, residency & employment are missing for NAW allowing anyone to slither in from the jungle).

So is that their long-game strategy? Have an order imposed and bar you from election in 2017? How ironic that if you were on the cushy expenses gravy-train then you might have some spare change sloshing about to pay. Of course, you too might be tempted to become soft, lazy & impotent.

'The Claimant is a housewife, mother and amateur blogger. The defendants are a council and a chief executive. It is literally state versus citizen. In a large part, the origins of the entire case derive from the issue of getting ones voice heard at all'

'In light of the evidence, the allegations of perverting the course of justice are unsustainable. This is the most serious allegation and the Claimant deserves to have her reputation vindicated...Mr Davies' evidence was incoherent, confused and contradicted [his] statements given at the time...in short, Mr Davies' evidence of what happened has completely changed and he cannot be relied on'

(From closing submission for the claimant at trial, February 2013)

...In August 2016, following a very belated (three years later) complaint to the police by Mark James that I perverted the course of justice, the investigation was dropped as there was no evidence.

There never was going to be any evidence as I told the truth, on oath, at the time.